Benefits deductions: Crime shouldn't pay, says David Cameron

Originally Posted by Sirius

I dont like the banks and yes you know that , but Nether do i like paying tax so people who should not be allowed to claim job seekers because they are in fact protesting 100 of miles from where they live and not actively looking for work ????

Where did this come from..Do you know for a fact that the protesters are on JSA?Or are you just dragging in a group that you dislike to just have a spurious go at them?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Where did this come from..Do you know for a fact that the protesters are on JSA?Or are you just dragging in a group that you dislike to just have a spurious go at them?

So are you saying they all live just around the corner from where they are protesting, I dont wear rose tinted glasses because i live in the real world Maggy and yes i am having a go at them read my post again as to why

You ask me if i do know so do you know that there is none there on jsa

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I dont like the banks and yes you know that , but Nether do i like paying tax so that people who i feel should not be allowed to claim job seekers, simply because they are in fact protesting 100 of miles from where they live and not actively looking for work ????

As for the knobs comment, I made it because of WHERE they have decided to protest. They are not doing themselves any favours by making trouble for the church.

Aside from the fact that you are basing a lot on assumptions my earlier post re: JSA conditions refers. People can claim JSA anywhere in the UK, there is no requirement for them to remain local / static should they do so. Indeed several coalition ministers have mooted their mobility as a good thing.

In short they are making relatively little "trouble" for the church beyond having a financial impact.

On that matter I seem to remember some bloke called Jesus having been quoted in Matthew 18:20 as saying "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them".

Effectively even he seemed to suggest that a church (or cathedral for that matter) wasn't a prerequisite for worship.

One could reasonably argue that the cathedrals (and indeed your) concerns in relation to access to worship on their premises are ill founded.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Aside from the fact that you are basing a lot on assumptions my earlier post re: JSA conditions refers. They are making relatively little "trouble" for the church beyong having a financial impact.

I seem to remember some bloke called Jesus having been quoted in Matthew 18:20 as saying "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them",

Effectively even he seemed to suggest that a church (or cathedral for that matter) wasn't a prerequisite for worship.

I just feel they could have picked a better target, how about the gates of Downing street.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by danielf

So the idea is to have a two tier penal system?

If you're on benefits you should receive a harsher punishment for the same crime compared to those who aren't on benefits?

How are people on benefits being treated harsher?

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I just feel they could have picked a better target, how about the gates of Downing street.

Why as the church have the biggest load of money than any government?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Personally I think it's going to lead to an increase in crime..after all they are just going to go shoplifting, mugging or burgling to make up the shortfall.

You have summed it up to a tee Maggy.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by denphone

You have summed it up to a tee Maggy.

Yeah, let's just give them more money and eradicate the problem completely.

From now on let's just give everybody, say, £40k a year for free. Except the bankers of course, we'll make them pay for it all.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yeah, let's just give them more money and eradicate the problem completely.

From now on let's just give everybody, say, £40k a year for free. Except the bankers of course, we'll make them pay for it all.

But thats what they will do as we hear about them in our city shoplifting or committing crimes all the time to make up their money.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by denphone

But thats what they will do as we hear about them in our city shoplifting or committing crimes all the time to make up their money.

Sorry don't understand that comment based on my comment, can you clarify?

Originally Posted by Sirius

I just feel they could have picked a better target, how about the gates of Downing street.

Well why should Cameron be inconvenienced?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Sorry don't understand that comment based on my comment, can you clarify?

l am just reinstating what Maggy stated in her post of what will probably happen if their benefits get cut as we are talking about a hard core of people here who's attitude is well l have had my benefits cut and all they will do is go out and commit crimes to make up for their shortfall of money and l suspect even if they get caught most of them won't even go to jail.

Originally Posted by Sirius

So are you saying they all live just around the corner from where they are protesting, I dont wear rose tinted glasses because i live in the real world Maggy and yes i am having a go at them read my post again as to why

You ask me if i do know so do you know that there is none there on jsa

I make no assumptions about them..I was actually thinking of the group that Cameron was actually talking about,the summer rioters and looters and general law breakers across the country..

You dragged in these particular protesters to the discussion and they are neither rioters or looters.they are protesters and NOT whom Cameron was referring to.

They have broken no laws either..so no need for Cameron to remove any benefit from them.

And lastly life is not as black and white as you would like it to be..If you had your way no one would be able to speak up or out in public from the tone you seem to be adopting.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yeah, let's just give them more money and eradicate the problem completely.

From now on let's just give everybody, say, £40k a year for free. Except the bankers of course, we'll make them pay for it all.

Or we could just treat everyone the same, if you do the crime you're punished appropriately, rather than vilifying some and ignoring the crimes of others while handing them billions in taxpayers' cash and inflation inducing funny money.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I make no assumptions about them..I was actually thinking of the group that Cameron was actually talking about,the summer rioters and looters and general law breakers across the country..

You dragged in these particular protesters to the discussion and they are neither rioters or looters.they are protesters and NOT whom Cameron was referring to.

They have broken no laws either..so no need for Cameron to remove any benefit from them.

And lastly life is not as black and white as you would like it to be..If you had your way no one would be able to speak up or out in public from the tone you seem to be adopting.

I have no problem with people protesting, I have a problem with people getting benefits they are NOT entitled to. My point is that if its found that some of the protesters at this camp in London are claiming JSA in another town and that town is not where they are protesting then they are in my eye's not looking for work, Therefor they are not entitled to JSA, If that is the case JSA should be removed whilst they protest in London. Or do you think they should be paid a benefit they are not entitled to.